Every day, parents fight it out with each other in courtrooms all over the country. Often, one person is claiming that the other person is a “bad” parent. The list of reasons varies, of course, but the belief that the other parent is “bad” doesn’t waver. I hear all sorts of allegations: “He doesn’t put them to bed until 10:00 on a school night when he has them” or “She actually bought our 16-year-old a cell phone for his birthday” or “When he’s with his father, he’s allowed to drink soda” or “My ex-wife signed our son up for piano lessons instead of Little League.” The aforementioned are apparently considered parenting faux pas by the opposing parties and to them, automatically define the other as a “bad” parent.

Basically, most people believe they can agree on a list of things that make someone a “good” parent. Similarly, most people believe they can agree on what makes someone a “bad” parent. Notice that in each instance, I used the phrase “believe they can agree” rather than “can agree”. Why? Thanks for asking. I did some informal field research and here’s what I found out:
To some people, a “good” parent is kind, loving and understanding. To others, it’s one thing to be loving and kind but “it’s not a parent’s job to be the child’s friend.” Some people told me that a “good” parent teaches a child lessons gently and with constant regard for the child’s self-esteem. Others poo-pooed that method saying that children who learn hard lessons never forget them and that the whole “making nice” parenting style is a lot of hoo ha. (These are very technical terms).
One man told me that to be a good parent to a son, a father has to teach him not to be a sissy. When I asked him to elaborate, he said that he better not ever find one of his boys crying or he’d “give him something to cry about.” Ouch!

I expected fathers to be tougher on their sons and easier on their daughters. Pardon the stereotype, but I was thinking about that whole “Daddy’s little girl” thing. I was surprised to hear some fathers tell me that their sons would learn to be men through sports and the military but that they had to be tough on their daughters so they wouldn’t grow up to be “tramps” or “sappy bimbos” (that was an actual response, I kid you not).
By the time I had worked my way through the fathers in my little poll, I dared not have any stereotypical expectations of mothers. Whew, was I glad I didn’t. One mother told me that she fully expected her son to be a strong man who didn’t display any signs of weakness. To accomplish that task, she explained that if he cried like a baby (the kid was 6), she would send him to his room and let him think about how he had just embarrassed himself.
Another mother told me she was afraid her daughter was too smart and so she would have difficulty finding a husband. (Is this 2010???) To combat that problem, she encouraged her daughter to steer clear of the debate club and the student government.
If I were list a series of traits and ask you if they made for a “good” parent or a “bad” parent, I’m rather sure that I would receive varied responses. Let’s test that theory:
“Good” Parent or “Bad” Parent?
1) Spanks a child when he or she has done something wrong.
2) Never spanks a child, no matter how bad the offense.
3) Is never critical of a child for fear of damaging his or her self-esteem.
4) Always points out when a child has made a mistake in order to teach the child to recognize mistakes so as not to repeat them.
5) Pays a child an allowance to do weekly household chores in order to teach the child the value of hard work and earning one’s own living.
6) Expects a child to perform weekly household chores without receiving financial compensation because the child has to learn that all members of the family must contribute to making the household run.
Okay, you get the idea.
I’m reasonably sure we can all agree that a “good” parent would never torture a child or force a child to commit sexual acts. I’m even pretty darn sure that we can all agree that a “bad” parent would not think twice about doing such things.
Every day, courts are asked to make determinations about custody and visitation. In effect, they are asked to decide if mothers and fathers are “good” parents or “bad” parents. Judges listen to the most amazing arguments. Sometimes, I’m surprised they don’t laugh right out loud. Other times, I’m shocked they don’t break down and cry.
]]>That said … I’m pleased to announce that my other blog, Connecticut Gay and Lesbian Law, celebrated its first anniversary today. If it’s of interest to you, I hope you’ll give it a read.

When I’m back in the groove (meaning I’ve caught up on the work that piled up while I was busy relaxing), I’ll resume regular posting in this space. Meanwhile, feel free to browse the archive. Thanks for your understanding.
]]>Excerpted from Politics Daily:
“The U.S. Supreme Court declared Monday that individual gun rights under the Second Amendment apply and may be used to block enforcement of certain restrictive state and local gun control ordinances.”

Read: Supreme Court Ruling Backs Individual Gun Rights
]]>
It doesn’t seem possible that I first posted here on Attorney O’s Midnight Musings one year ago today. I don’t know whether to refer to this as a birthday or an anniversary. Either way, 365 days have passed since I first hit “publish” and launched into the world of blogging.
I want to thank everyone who has ever taken the time to read my posts. It’s nice to know that I’m not all alone here in cyberland. Thank you to those who have posted comments and to those who have sent me e-mails with words of encouragement. It all means a lot to me.
As I reflect on this last year as a new blogger, it occurs to me that I have really enjoyed this time. Some of my colleagues who don’t yet blog often ask why I bother to “waste” my free time blogging instead of relaxing. While my replies vary, I usually tell them that I blog because I enjoy it and because I learn things while blogging that I might not otherwise have learned. In my book, that’s not a waste of my time.
For me, the act of blogging is a lot like taking a road trip on a small town back road instead of the interstate. Instead of barreling down the highway, I take time to look at the view. Those small towns are chock full of quaint little shops, unusual architecture and old cemeteries. It’s on those rural routes that you come upon that special diner that “the locals” frequent (the ones with the apple pie that’s out of this world). It’s where you happen upon the old general stores that still sell “penny candy” and Necco Wafers. It’s on those same back roads that you come upon “the locals” who are all too willing to regale you with stories about the history of their town. It’s always a journey worth taking.
While blogging, I meander through the back roads of the world wide web, stopping to discover websites that have been around for years and others that are just getting off the ground. I’ve happened upon blogs that have already attracted a strong loyal following and plenty of brand new entries to the blogisphere. I’ve stumbled upon some rather unusual finds on the internet that I would likely not have found had I not undertaken the authoring of this blog. I also watch a lot less television these days!
I’d love to post every night but the reality of my life doesn’t always allow me to do so. Sometimes, after a particularly long and difficult day practicing law, I’m just too tired to come home and string words together in a coherent fashion. Other nights, I’m just too busy with my life to post at all. Sometimes, I just don’t have anything to say. So while I don’t post every night, this blog remains important to me and I hope you’ll keep coming back.
It is my sincere hope that everyone who stops by Attorney O’s Midnight Musings will find that the trip was worth the ride. If you chuckle here and there, or learn something you didn’t know before you landed in my little corner of Cyber Town, that will make me a happy little blogger.
Here’s to another year of blogging and discovery!
]]>
While on their honeymoon, the wife begins to exhibits signs of a stroke. She and her husband are both trained medical professionals. The husband understands how important it is to get her immediate medical attention so he speeds his way to the hospital, running two red lights in the process. A police officer follows them to the hospital in hot pursuit, lights flashing and sirens wailing. The husband doesn’t want to waste critical minutes by pulling over so he figures he’ll just explain when he gets to the ER. Once at the ER, the husband pulls the wife from the car and the police officer attempts to block his passage into the ER. Now the poor husband is facing felony charges.
I was just killing time tonight when I happened upon a story about a California couple who decided to hold their wedding ceremony and reception at the Home Depot in California, where they are both employed. Instead of legal advice to end the weekend, I thought I’d post a link to the story for your review:
]]>Re-reading the notice again, you discover that the date you are scheduled to show up at the courthouse to perform your civic duty coincides with that business trip to Arizona. The one you booked three weeks ago. The same trip during which the boss expects you to give the big presentation to the new management team.
This is most inconvenient. Whatever should you do?

You do have the right to request a postponement to another date within 10 months of the original date you were assigned. By all means, don’t skip out on jury duty. Under current law, failure to appear for jury duty is an infraction. However, effective October 1, 2010, if you fail to appear for jury duty, you will be subject to a civil penalty by a Superior Court judge.
Public Act No. 10-180 Sec. 3. reads:
Section 51-237 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2010): Each juror, duly chosen, drawn and summoned, who fails to appear shall be subject to a civil penalty, the amount of which shall be established by the judges of the Superior Court, but the court may excuse such juror from the payment thereof. If a sufficient number of the jurors summoned do not appear, or if for any cause there is not a sufficient number of jurors to make up the panel, the court may order such number of persons who qualify for jury service under section 51-217 to be summoned as may be necessary, as talesmen, and any talesman so summoned who makes default of appearance without sufficient cause shall be subject to a civil penalty, the amount of which shall be established by the judges of the Superior Court. The provisions of this section shall be enforced by the Attorney General within available appropriations.
If you’ve been summoned, you might want to review “YOUR GUIDE TO JURY DUTY: An obligation and an honor” which is published by the Connecticut Judicial Branch. The publication “Jury Service in Connecticut, What Every Juror Should Know” is available in Spanish and Polish.
If you are so inclined, I offer a brief History of Jury Duty (published on the United States District Court
Western Missouri website) for your review.
I mused about texting while driving back in April. It’s something I feel strongly about. I was pleased when, on June 3rd, Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed legislation that eliminates the one-time exemption from a fine for purchasing a hands-free device and specifies that the ban on using electronic devices while driving applies to texting as well as cell phone conversations.
Last week, I happened to view a special aired on WFSB-TV promoting safe driving by asking people to take the “I Promise Not to Drive Distracted” pledge.
Sponsored by WFSB, The Hartford Financial Services Group and The Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, the campaign targets all drivers — particularly teens — and aims to teach the dangers of distracted driving.
I urge every reader of this blog to take the pledge (you can download it online here). Please talk to your teenagers about the dangers of taking their eyes off the road while driving — even for a second. Pass this on to your friends and neighbors.
Saving lives is serious business. Let’s all promise not to drive distracted. It’s the law, after all.
]]>
As part of my law practice, I serve as court-appointed conservator of the estate for several people. Most of my conserved persons suffer from mental illnesses and have difficulty managing their own finances. That’s where I come in. I serve as their representative/payee for purposes of Social Security benefits and State cash assistance stipends. I pay their monthly bills and create budgets that allow me to give them money for personal expenses each week. It’s mostly a frustrating and thankless job but it needs to be done.
Here’s where my “balancing the budget” idea comes in. Virtually every one of my conserved persons receives assistance from the State of Connecticut. That assistance comes in the form of medical benefits, food stamps, cash supplements and payment of their Medicare Part B premiums. All of those programs are income-based. Each year, after an initial application for assistance is submitted to the Department of Social Services (DSS), the applicant must complete a redetermination form. For each person, I will receive notification by mail that the redetermination form is due. This usually occurs at least twice per year. The redetermination form is something like 9 pages long.
For each applicant, I am required to provide supplemental documentation. Most of the time, the applicant’s sole income is a monthly Social Security check. Those amounts don’t change during the year (unless the person works or has somehow been overpaid, which is the exception rather than the rule in the population I serve). If a person receives Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and we all know that the Social Security Administration only adjusts the amount of the benefits on an annual basis, why am I forced to provide documentation of that benefit every 6 months? Work with me here. I mail or fax the documentation to a very tired and severely overworked DSS employee who is forced to spend hours wading through mountains of paper that basically tells him or her nothing new. Part one of my plan to balance the budget is to eliminate the multiple redeterminations. Think of the savings realized right there.
It gets better, I promise.
Once a redetermination has been completed by the DSS worker, the computer spits out a ton of documents to tell me what benefits the applicant will receive. I will receive one envelope containing the notice about medical benefits. The envelope will also contain a 2-page notice of how to appeal the decision. I will receive a second envelope for the same applicant containing another page or 2 about the food stamp benefit. That envelope will also contain a 2-page notice of how to appeal the decision. In yet another envelope for the same applicant, I will receive a form letter telling me that I am required to notify DSS if the applicant’s income changes or if some other noted change occurs. Often, there’s a fourth envelope containing a notice that the case worker has changed. (The latter occurs so often, I can’t keep track any more).
Okay, do the math. What is the total cost of the paper, toner cartridges required to print the notices and the postage required to send that many envelopes to my office about ONE person? Oh, I almost forgot to mention that the applicant also receives a duplicate of every notice I receive. Remember to multiply the total by 2. Whew, that’s a staggering number.

Now multiply that amount by the thousands of DSS clients (which is always increasing, thanks to our wonderful economy). How much do you suppose that adds up to? Don’t forget that this process happens at least twice a year for each DSS client. Do you have enough digits on your calculator for all those zeros?
If the State would eliminate all of the wasted funds allocated to useless notices and gazillions of wasted envelopes for just one agency, how much do you suppose it would save each year? Enough to put a dent in the budget, I’d imagine. If the State took a hard look at its wasteful practices in every one of its agencies and departments, we might just end up with a balanced budget every year.
We all know that governments don’t exactly run efficiently. Red tape is expensive, after all.

That said, I happened to tune in to Jim Vicevich’s “Sound Off Connecticut” show on WTIC this morning. I was driving and only had about 10 minutes to listen, but the topic happened to be the motor vehicle accident involving an illegal immigrant and MA Representative, Mike Moran. The drunk guy (who was also driving without a license) plowed into Moran and his response was to laugh it off. You see, MA Governor Deval Patrick revoked an order by former governor Mitt Romney which gave state police power to investigate immigration violations.
Read Too much: suspected illegal immigrant hits MA Rep Mike Moran and laughs
One of Vicevich’s callers mentioned a website that keeps track of the victims of illegal aliens. I offer it for your review below as well as a few other sites I found tonight while researching the topic:
]]>